2 ms·

>I will never understand why SO canceled 'Talent', their job board. From a related article: https://jlericson.com/2021/04/27/reading_tealeaves.html https://jle

>I will never understand why SO canceled 'Talent', their job board. From a related article: https://jlericson.com/2021/04/27/reading_tealeaves.html https://jlericson.com/2021/04/27/reading_tealeaves.html "But since it was finally canceled well after the acquisition, I suspect it was no longer growing and, perhaps, unprofitable. I don't get the feeling that the new CEO was interested in this line of business and it could be that Talent was starved of resources until it was easy to eliminate." Simple: It wasn't making money fast enough for the parent company's investors

fjeifisjf 3y ago
[dead]
deng 3y ago
Yes, pretty much what this article also says, but I find it hard to accept that as an answer. I can't imagine that this had a lot of maintenance cost. As far as I could see, the whole thing was excellent and pretty much finished, I can't remember ever having to consult anyone at SO for support. They could have tripled the price and we would have payed, because if you compare how much hires/$ we got out of SO compared to for instance LinkedIn, this still would have been a no-brainer.
- jrumbut 3y ago
  I also wonder if they could have spun it off as a small, profitable (after price hikes and expense cutting), but non-growing company that existed to buy advertising space on StackOverflow. That might have been too big a distraction though. It's just a shame that they destroyed what, to me, was the best job board out there.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Not to be too glib, but investors are looking for sure things and on the internet advertising is a "sure thing" For these kinds of company deals where they don't have 20 years of consistent revenue with a consistent product, like Coca-Cola or Apple sales, investors are going to push the company into doing things that they can understand easily.
jefftk 3y ago
I think the line you're quoting is actually from the article we're commenting on?

fjeifisjf 3y ago

[dead]

deng 3y ago

Yes, pretty much what this article also says, but I find it hard to accept that as an answer. I can't imagine that this had a lot of maintenance cost. As far as I could see, the whole thing was excellent and pretty much finished, I can't remember ever having to consult anyone at SO for support. They could have tripled the price and we would have payed, because if you compare how much hires/$ we got out of SO compared to for instance LinkedIn, this still would have been a no-brainer.

jrumbut 3y ago
I also wonder if they could have spun it off as a small, profitable (after price hikes and expense cutting), but non-growing company that existed to buy advertising space on StackOverflow. That might have been too big a distraction though. It's just a shame that they destroyed what, to me, was the best job board out there.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Not to be too glib, but investors are looking for sure things and on the internet advertising is a "sure thing" For these kinds of company deals where they don't have 20 years of consistent revenue with a consistent product, like Coca-Cola or Apple sales, investors are going to push the company into doing things that they can understand easily.

jefftk 3y ago

I think the line you're quoting is actually from the article we're commenting on?